Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 2:59 amPosts: 438Location: United States of America

Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:41 am

Veracs wrote:

Bullshit. Dems voted for both wars along with the Republicans, you can't blame them solely for being there.

Well, people in the democratic party are not synonymous with progressives as a whole; much of the democratic party is taken up by people that are fiscally moderate and socially center to center left. Many leftists feel much like the tea party on the other side of the spectrum, that the party they have been voting for doesn't really represent them; much like the people in the tea part movement feel that the 'establishment' republican party doesn't speak for them. But basically, you're right, as far as civil liberties go, obama/democrats is just as bad or worse as bush. He hasn't pushed for repealing the patriot act, feigned vetoing NDAA but didn't, hasn't attempted to close guantanamo, and is waging a dubiously legal drone war that congress legalized after the fact. Similarly, bill clinton started the 'free trade' ball rolling which is pretty much a neoliberal (i.e. economically conservative) idea, not one of the left when he signed nafta. And let's not forget that even when democrats had the 'supermajority' in 2010, it wasn't republicans that held up the public option part of the bill, it was a cadre of ~10 moderate democrats led by max bacchus, resulting in a bill that forces insurance companies to cover people in a noncompetitive market.

As far as the atlantis thing goes, many of the nazi's believed in the occult theory that the indo-european race of 'supermen' were descendents of the people of atlantis, who escaped it's destruction and who landed in asia and then migrated west. So varg could subscribe to that idea.

Pretty sure Jews didn't invent homosexuality, much less foist it upon the European population.If I had to guess, homosexuality wasn't even a problem until the rise of "Jewish" religions in Europe.

It's so funny how most of his extremely Conservative moralisms (made up word) are so heavily rooted in (or, at a minimum, exactly parallel to) Abrahamic religions and relatively modern, "Christianized" European society.

HOW VERY JEWISH OF YOU, VARG.

...Anyway, Varg is totally delusional and full of stupid contradictions. Nothing new there.

I think I read somewhere that either the Torah (or rabbinical Judaism at least) also expressly forbids tattoos. I also saw a comment made by Monsieur Cachet aka the artist formerly known as Varg Vikernes where he backpedaled on his previous statement about the electric guitar as being "negro instrument"; something along the lines of 'its negligible..an instrument is just an instrument'. You gotta love how he picks his spots. His whole ideological belief system has more holes than a cheese grater.

Since (thus far) he has not done so, I will acknowledge that he is at least smart enough to realize that lyrical content as a means of espousing political and racial propaganda taints the art of the music itself.

as "negligible fraction". You must be dimly aware that the number of immigrants in the population is much less than 48%.

I would be interested to see the breakdown in 'types' of rape. According to Swedish law, Julian Assange is a rapist, for something called 'sex by surprise'. Evidently it was very rapey of him to take his condom off, or keep going when she was tired, or something. Sweden seems to have stretched the definition of rape to outermost nebulous limits. If you remove the types of 'rape' from that statistic which most other countries would not even consider rape, I wonder what amount of immigrants-as-rapists you are left with? My bigoted hunch is that the native Swedes account for more of the Julian Assange style "rapes" while the real violent rapes skew more towards immigrants.

So, define rape, for me, if Sweden's seemingly "got it all wrong", then. What do Sweden's rape laws say? Can you explain to me how they've stretched them to the "outermost nebulous limits"? Why would "violent rape" skew towards immigrants? Do you have any data to back your "creative thinking" up?You can't remove "the types of rape not considered rape in other countries" (what?) from rape statistics here, because, get this, it is considered rape here. And maybe, just maybe, the reason why a large number of rapes are reported in Sweden are because there isn't the same stigma towards reporting it (i.e. police actually take it seriously).

Getting back to the "left vs. right" debacle. Is it just me, or do other people stop reading when they see people using either political alignment as a signifier to some kind of collective group that thinks exactly the same things about everything. Come on, you guys.

_________________

MariusBR wrote:

Go ask a Swede by the way. [...] They would probably tell you that the only way to be BM is to wear a mace in your pants.

Wow, you figured me out. Because I agree with someone, I must have gotten my opinions straight from that person. It couldn't possibly be that two people have arrived at similar conclusions. The homeland would be for white/European people, just like each other race has their home. Why is it that we're the only race that isn't "allowed" this? We're the only ones who have been deceived into thinking we don't deserve it as much as each other race. And we're the only one with so many of our own kind brainwashed into thinking that the few that want to look out for our race must be evil. Get over the Nazi guilt and realize our race is being slowly eliminated. You're in Scandinavia, you must clearly know how these immigrants from the middle east and Africa lower the quality of living and raise crime rates and rape the girls. I've three good friends, all decent young women that have been violated by these so-called refugees. Why can't our people be safe too?

Each other race has their home? What does that even mean? A home free of Europeans? No white people live in the continent of Africa? The Middle East? Australia? North America? South America? Oh mother.And you having a different opinion isn't why you get called out. It's because what you say is rubbish. And if you don't understand that, here's a parallell:Imagine you claimed that the planet Earth was flat. People would laugh at you. And claiming Earth is flat, isn't an opinion, it's something that's factually wrong. People calling you out on that isn't because you have a belief, it's the content of the belief.Clear enough?

What's your experience of Scandinavia? You're clearly not a Scandinavian (since you earlier, in another thread, asked if someone could translate Swedish for you), but seem to have an opinion about how things are here, so your experience are of some interest here. Then let me tell you this, since I'm a swede:No, immigrants from the middle east and Africa does not lower the quality of living here. If we've seen any change for the worse, it's purely because the right wing government are on a privatisation spree, seeing to the needs of the few instead of the many, dismantling worker's rights. Get your facts straight.

Why is it your kind (the racist sexist) always whine and act like a victimised martyr when you get called out? Are you really that pampered in your white man privilege that you are so unused to having defend your standpoint? Oh, limiting other peoples rights (be they women och people of a different tone of skin), spouting hate is ok, but the same moment you get called out or opposed, you scream 'bloody murder'? Makes me think of Satanic Warmaster, getting banned from playing a festival, and then whine about how 'discriminating' that is.

You seem to think that "the white European" is some homogenous group. Really? "The white race" isn't "allowed their own homeland". Here's a thought; why should it, when it has denied every other culture theirs?

Why is it your kind (the racist sexist) always whine and act like a victimised martyr when you get called out? Are you really that pampered in your white man privilege that you are so unused to having defend your standpoint? Oh, limiting other peoples rights (be they women och people of a different tone of skin), spouting hate is ok, but the same moment you get called out or opposed, you scream 'bloody murder'? Makes me think of Satanic Warmaster, getting banned from playing a festival, and then whine about how 'discriminating' that is.

You seem to think that "the white European" is some homogenous group. Really? "The white race" isn't "allowed their own homeland". Here's a thought; why should it, when it has denied every other culture theirs?

The bottomline is this: you're a racist sexist. Own it.

'White man privilege' (sic) is nothing more than a hate-fuelled, revenge based discourse used to justify European dispossession(as you do in your penultimate paragraph) and attempt to delegitimize and dehumanize an ethnic and/or racial group. You are ignorant of the bloody and violent reality of human history in which every people has been guilty of inhumane action towards 'the other' at one point or another. I suppose Arabs are to be denied their right to exist also on account of their own slave trading and ownership? Or did you not read about that in your sociology textbook?

I would also expect an obvious socialist like yourself to be fully aware that colonialism was almost exclusively a result of the interests and ambitions of a dominant upper class, and has nothing to do with the average European who you would see punished on account of their 'original sin of white skin'.

'White man privilege' (sic) is nothing more than a hate-fuelled, revenge based discourse used to justify European dispossession(as you do in your penultimate paragraph) and attempt to delegitimize and dehumanize an ethnic and/or racial group. You are ignorant of the bloody and violent reality of human history in which every people has been guilty of inhumane action towards 'the other' at one point or another. I suppose Arabs are to be denied their right to exist also on account of their own slave trading and ownership? Or did you not read about that in your sociology textbook?

I would also expect an obvious socialist like yourself to be fully aware that colonialism was almost exclusively a result of the interests and ambitions of a dominant upper class, and has nothing to do with the average European who you would see punished on account of their 'original sin of white skin'.

First of all, I hardly see anything but strawmen here. How am I "ignorant of the bloody and violent reality of human history"? The acts of the European man stands unparallelled in history, when it comes to eradicating cultures, inhumane actions towards 'the other' and violent exploitation of resources and people. Saying that, does not exclude other inhumane actions by any other people or culture. And what you 'suppose' will stand for you, and only you. Putting words in people's mouth doesn't help your argument.I have no problem in agreeing with the fact that "colonialism was almost exclusively a result of the interests and ambitions of a dominant upper class", but please answer this: how is "the average European" being punished? And who is "the average European"?

hahaha 48% as "negligible fraction". You must be dimly aware that the number of immigrants in the population is much less than 48%.

Well, at 7% of the population, it may seem that immigrants are over-represented, but that's just a racist view. I assure you, multicultural society is a veritable utopia, in comparison to homogeneous European societies, where things like Sharia law are but a dream. And did it never cross your mind that maybe we deserve to be raped for being the most bloodthirsty people in the world?

matras wrote:

First of all, I hardly see anything but strawmen here. How am I "ignorant of the bloody and violent reality of human history"? The acts of the European man stands unparallelled in history

There you have it. No where in the world has genocide, massacres, slavery, religious wars or ethnic cleansing ever been carried out by non-Europeans. If only the white race would check their privilege, this world may be a paradise.

There you have it. No where in the world has genocide, massacres, slavery, religious wars or ethnic cleansing ever been carried out by non-Europeans. If only the white race would check their privilege, this world may be a paradise.

Well, at 7% of the population, it may seem that immigrants are over-represented, but that's just a racist view. I assure you, multicultural society is a veritable utopia, in comparison to homogeneous European societies, where things like Sharia law are but a dream. And did it never cross your mind that maybe we deserve to be raped for being the most bloodthirsty people in the world?

It's starting to become obvious that you're just playing a supporter of multiculturalism, as it seems to be like you're practically giving the racists support, by writing absurdities. You're obviously trying to caricature some radical socialist. If not, you're just as bad as the ones you criticize.

And the discussion isn't really about multiculturalism, because no one are trying to avoid foreign cultural influence. No one is attacking foreign inventions or technology, foreign science, foreign commerce, foreign literature, foreign music, foreign video games, foreign food, foreign history, foreign textiles, etc. What they don't like is foreigners in their country, especially those that are visibly different; not foreign culture. They are so thoroughly for multiculturalism that they don't realize that nothing they like or do involves anything from their own nation. Even "Norwegian black metal" is derived from foreign music and is played on foreign instruments, using foreign technology for recording, distribution and playback. The only Norwegian thing about it is the language, but even that is derived from other languages. The most Norwegian thing they could do is probably writing a poem. Too bad they can't write anything without an imported alphabet or semi-international runes (which I assume has an unknown origin). Everything is multicultural.

If there has ever been someone in the modern world truly against multiculturalism, it must be resembling Japan during the Tokugawa period. But even they were influenced by foreign nations, especially Chinese culture.

Last edited by Megadeth on Sun Mar 24, 2013 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

@MegadethWell, he's quoting the statistics of the Swedish Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna), a right-wing party sprung out of the quasi-neonazi movement BSS (Bevara Sverige Svenskt = Keep Sweden Swedish) and the National Front, with close connections to the Swedish Defence League (styled after the English Defence League). And btw; the statistics from the Swedish Democrats have been proven wrong, manipulated and factually incorrect time and time again.

@MegadethWell, he's quoting the statistics of the Swedish Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna), a right-wing party sprung out of the quasi-neonazi movement BSS (Bevara Sverige Svenskt = Keep Sweden Swedish) and the National Front, with close connections to the Swedish Defence League (styled after the English Defence League). And btw; the statistics from the Swedish Democrats have been proven wrong, manipulated and factually incorrect time and time again.

As a Norwegian I am somewhat familiar with them, but I didn't really react to the numbers or anything like that. I know they are a bunch of racist egocentric assholes.

The problem is that BaloroftheEvilEye is claiming that no non-white people has ever massacred anyone, committed genocide (or at least tried to; it's rather difficult in practice), taken slaves or had religious wars. This is complete non-sense. He's also saying that because white people are over-represented when it comes to destructiveness they deserve to be raped by non-whites, which is also non-sense. On top of that he's insinuating that this is the cause for the rapes, which is also non-sense. None of it is true.

First of all, I hardly see anything but strawmen here. How am I "ignorant of the bloody and violent reality of human history"? The acts of the European man stands unparallelled in history

There you have it. No where in the world has genocide, massacres, slavery, religious wars or ethnic cleansing ever been carried out by non-Europeans. If only the white race would check their privilege, this world may be a paradise.

You surely know what "unparallelled" means.

And you have to work a bit on the troll-skills, because right now you're failing class cracker.

Actually, the data itself was originally taken from National Council for Crime Prevention, which I suspect is another nazi-like entity.

Where in BRÅ's (Brottsförebygganderådet = National Council for Crime Prevention) can we find those statistics, because nothing in the statistics on their site takes skin colour or country of origin into account as far as I've found.

And you have to work a bit on the troll-skills, because right now you're failing class cracker.

It seemed a bit obvious where he was going when he quoted rape statistics from Sverigejävlademokraterna.... I'm sure they're going to represent anything immigration-related from an impartial lense. You know, with Järnrör Ekeroth & Co running around.

_________________

MariusBR wrote:

Go ask a Swede by the way. [...] They would probably tell you that the only way to be BM is to wear a mace in your pants.

What is the Khmer Rouge, Japanese Occupation and Unit 731, Liberia, Israeli occupation of Palestine, etc?

Edit, I suppose North Korea deserves an honourable mention for it's many wonderful camps where they concentrate political prisoners into.

You should learn to elaborate on what you're trying to say. How is this related? What do you mean?

Are you saying that Pol Pot was "white", and that Japanese and Korean people are "white", but that Arabs are not "white"? Why? Because they live on the other side of the Mediterranean? What about Liberia? As far as I know, Southern, Northern and Western European people, Persians, Arabs, (Slavic people?), etc. are all grouped in the "white race", and they are more genetically related than those being labeled "negro"; black people from sub-Saharan Africa are more different from each other than British are different from Iraqis. East Asian people are not "white". They have light skin, but they are not closely related to Western Europeans. Also, Aborigines, which some insist on calling "negros", are not actually "negros", and they are much closer related to East Asian people than African people. That they happen to share skin color has to do with the sun.

And if you truly think that the color of their skin, their nation or country of origin, or something like that is behind anything, then you're really a racist yourself. Just because you happen to have the opposite opinion of traditional white supremacist doesn't mean that you're no less a racist. IF what you're writing is even your opinion, your posts seems rather dubious at times. If you are saying that these are all non-whites you are still wrong, and it contradicts what you have written earlier. The only logical explanation is that you are trolling.

You said it, not me. Just remember that they tried to pass the charia law in Ontario and it's the supreme court that stop them. Imagine if they become the majority, they could easily take control of the legisllation and change all they want. You can say it's only the minority but if you look at Iran, the Islamists are not in the majority and yet They have all the power there.

And for those who think that races only differ on the color of the skin, it's not true. physiologically, their's more difference than that.

You said it, not me. Just remember that they tried to pass the charia law in Ontario and it's the supreme court that stop them. Imagine if they become the majority, they could easily take control of the legisllation and change all they want. You can say it's only the minority but if you look at Iran, the Islamists are not in the majority and yet They have all the power there.

And for those who think that races only differ on the color of the skin, it's not true. physiologically, their's more difference than that.

You guys are speaking in collective terms again. Do you really think all so-called "Africans" think the same? Or all so-called "Europeans".Secondly, you seem to lack understand about what happened in Iran. Google that shit. Why was the Shah displaced in the first place? Oh, right...

You guys keep proving Megadeth's earlier point... Keep on digging, we can still see you.

_________________

MariusBR wrote:

Go ask a Swede by the way. [...] They would probably tell you that the only way to be BM is to wear a mace in your pants.

No, immigrants from the middle east and Africa does not lower the quality of living here. If we've seen any change for the worse, it's purely because the right wing government are on a privatisation spree, seeing to the needs of the few instead of the many, dismantling worker's rights. Get your facts straight.

It's good that you bring up this argument, because this point of disconnect between the "right wing" and "left wing" worldviews is something that needs to be pointed out more often, as it is basically fallacious. I pick out your word "purely" because this is how you lefties and you righties tend to perceive the decline of western societies: either it is 'purely' because of immigration/multiculturalism and the demographic replacement of whites by nonwhites, or it is 'purely' because of unrestrained corporate power taking away our rights and destroying the middle class. The truth is a synthesis of BOTH of these ostensibly opposing (they are only 'opposite' in the minds of political partisans), yet actually unified processes. Mass immigration is an integral plank of the so-called 'right-wing' (read, capitalist elite) agenda, as it is used to keep the labour pool growing (since white birthrates are low) and thereby keep the domestic market growing. Wages are the base foundation of any economy - workers earning wages buy products, which allow businesses to profit and governments to collect taxes. A declining population (our western inverted population pyramid) means less wage earners, which is bad for business. It would also mean much higher wages for the working age people, since there would be less workers to go around, which again would be bad for business and bad for the elites. The real reason that immigration is happening on this scale is not some idealistic 'multiculturalism' project, which is basically just a marketing ploy, its happening to keep the machine of global capitalism running as smoothly as pleases the sociopaths of the 0.1%.

What we need to do is turn our backs on this "perpetual growth" economic system, which we can clearly see also demands perpetual population growth. We are never going to be able to save the global ecosystem from total catastrophe if we do not even allow countries with low birthrates (which tend to be massively overpopulated already, looking at Europe...) to decline in population.

You said it, not me. Just remember that they tried to pass the charia law in Ontario and it's the supreme court that stop them. Imagine if they become the majority, they could easily take control of the legisllation and change all they want. You can say it's only the minority but if you look at Iran, the Islamists are not in the majority and yet They have all the power there.

And for those who think that races only differ on the color of the skin, it's not true. physiologically, their's more difference than that.

Please remember that Islam is a religion that Muslim people follow. It has nothing to do with race and blanketing all Muslims as Arabs not only lets you hijack a topic for your own deplorable ends but also makes you look like an uneducated idiot.

Also, there is a difference between races apart from the colour of their skin. Roughly 0.7% of a person's genome makes up skin colour, and everything else is determined by upbringing. That 0.7% is quite a negligible amount to control something as essential as physiology, which I don't think you know the meaning of, and something as unique as behaviour and personality. Upbringing determines how a person behaves and the fact that African, Arab or the descendants of any other non-white people are often in lower to lower-middle class backgrounds is beyond their control but are still scapegoats for the decline of Western civilisation.

Open your mind and realise that the world doesn't revolve around white pride and a colonial view of the world.

_________________

Zodijackyl wrote:

Civil has very strong and poorly substantiated opinions about anyone wielding jugs.

Please remember that Islam is a religion that Muslim people follow. It has nothing to do with race and blanketing all Muslims as Arabs not only lets you hijack a topic for your own deplorable ends but also makes you look like an uneducated idiot.

Also, there is a difference between races apart from the colour of their skin. Roughly 0.7% of a person's genome makes up skin colour, and everything else is determined by upbringing. That 0.7% is quite a negligible amount to control something as essential as physiology, which I don't think you know the meaning of, and something as unique as behaviour and personality. Upbringing determines how a person behaves and the fact that African, Arab or the descendants of any other non-white people are often in lower to lower-middle class backgrounds is beyond their control but are still scapegoats for the decline of Western civilisation.

Open your mind and realise that the world doesn't revolve around white pride and a colonial view of the world.

It's not true that everything is determined by upbringing. There's some truth in it but it's more complicated than that. Someone with a perfect upbringing can become a criminal. You said that Roughly 0.7% of a person's genome makes up skin colour but it's more than the skin of color that makes difference between races. For exemple, blacks have generally more testosterone than whites. That could affect their behavior. Our immune system is not exactly the same. Who knows what massive race mixing can do? Maybe it will be detrimental biologically to all the races.

And concerning Islam, who want a worldwide islamic monoculture? Maybe you don't care. But I don't want that, and I don't think I'm the only one to share that view. Islam is a conquering religion my nature and was created as a tool for the arabs to invade all other contries. We already have enough problems with christianity who almost destroyed paganism and a lot other religions and cultures, so let's not bring in an other one.

You said that Roughly 0.7% of a person's genome makes up skin colour but it's more than the skin of color that makes difference between races. For exemple, blacks have generally more testosterone than whites. That could affect their behavior. Our immune system is not exactly the same. Who knows what massive race mixing can do? Maybe it will be detrimental biologically to all the races.

How does this support your claims? Speculative unscientific fantasies does not prove a point. Differences in personality or brain functionality between "races" has never ever been proven to exist. And how does testosterone levels have to do with anything. Let's say it's true, and let's say there's a correlation between high testosterone levels and aggressive behavior. How is it related to anything you are discussing? How does that mean anything. There are probably a lot bigger differences in testosterone levels among some random white people, than between the average between black and white people. Yet you have no problems with white people having high testosterone levels? Why don't you blame all men in general? Why do you blame it on their ethnicity? Don't you see that you are searching for excuses to console your own racist prejudices? Besides, having high testosterone levels won't do anything on their own. Of course, if you spit a black man in the face he might be more likely to retaliate than a white man. On the other hand, whether he does is more likely related to his upbringing, his beliefs and his personality, than his testosterone levels. And if you spit a man in the face and blame him for being aggressive, you have to start looking in the mirror.

lost_wanderer wrote:

And concerning Islam, who want a worldwide islamic monoculture? Maybe you don't care. But I don't want that, and I don't think I'm the only one to share that view. Islam is a conquering religion my nature and was created as a tool for the arabs to invade all other contries. We already have enough problems with christianity who almost destroyed paganism and a lot other religions and cultures, so let's not bring in an other one.

Some Muslims want that (even fewer are going to do anything about it; just like I want a world without religion), but it has nothing to do with the religion. Some groups of socialism has been known to long for social revolution and the eradication of classes all over the world, they've seen the future as a social utopia. This does not mean that all forms of socialism requires world domination. There has even been prominent marxists that didn't share the ideas about the path to a utopian society. There is nothing in the core beliefs of socialism that requires it. There is nothing in Islam that requires world domination, and I highly doubt you will find a high support for world domination among Muslim immigrants (or their children, or converts) in Europe. You claim that Islam is "monocultural", then how come there are enclaves of Christians still living in the Middle East? That is because they weren't forced to convert to Islam; the Muslims respected other religions during their conquests. And this is at a time where most other didn't, and a time where other conqueror's were much more brutal. It seems like you don't realize that the Middle Ages were filled with European and Slavic "barbarians" committing savage acts and bloody invasions. The Mediterranean countries were more Civilized by far, and the Arabs were soon at the forefront of science, technology, literature and philosophy. Western Europe was poor, underdeveloped and useless. Western Europe was the biggest shit hole on the northern hemisphere. One of the reasons why Western European countries rationalized during the high middle ages was in part because of the rediscovery (for Europeans anyway) of the Ancient Greek literature that only the Arabs had managed to safeguard, because of their superior culture and large libraries.

That Islam was created as a tool with the specific goal of conquering foreign countries is ridiculous. Your conspiracy theories are obvious racist speculation, or did one of your blog heroes suddenly discover some 1400 year old diary?

Last edited by Megadeth on Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That is because they weren't forced to convert to Islam; the Muslims respected other religions during their conquests.

This really isn't true at all. People need to stop pretending Islam is or ever was any more a "religion of peace" than Christianity is/was. It's as ridiculous as people who say all Muslims are terrorists.

Megadeth wrote:

Western Europe was poor, underdeveloped and useless. Western Europe was the biggest shit hole on the northern hemisphere.

I'm starting to suspect that you've got a very skewed understanding of history.

Megadeth wrote:

...because of their superior culture...

Hey now, that's a little bit suspect.

_________________

gomorro wrote:

Fortunately the seminar started and when it finished, I runed away like if Usain Bolt were about to rape me.

That is because they weren't forced to convert to Islam; the Muslims respected other religions during their conquests.

This really isn't true at all. People need to stop pretending Islam is or ever was any more a "religion of peace" than Christianity is/was. It's as ridiculous as people who say all Muslims are terrorists.

"Non-Muslims under Islamic law would be held under the status of dhimmi (from Arabic ذميّ, dh as th pronounced like in this). They were allowed to "practice their religion, subject to certain conditions, and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy." Their personal safety and security of property were guaranteed, in return for paying tribute and acknowledging Muslim rule."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_other_religions

The_Beast_in_Black wrote:

Megadeth wrote:

...because of their superior culture...

Hey now, that's a little bit suspect.

Are you saying that Arab culture wasn't superior during this period of time?

The_Beast_in_Black wrote:

Megadeth wrote:

Western Europe was poor, underdeveloped and useless. Western Europe was the biggest shit hole on the northern hemisphere.

I'm starting to suspect that you've got a very skewed understanding of history.

I'm starting to suspect that you've got none, if you truly believe the period that is known as the DARK AGES in Europe was bright.

You've got to love when ignorant people don't have any real objections, but just wants to hassle.

"Non-Muslims under Islamic law would be held under the status of dhimmi (from Arabic ذميّ, dh as th pronounced like in this). They were allowed to "practice their religion, subject to certain conditions, and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy." Their personal safety and security of property were guaranteed, in return for paying tribute and acknowledging Muslim rule."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_other_religions

So, they weren't respected, were they? They were subject to the "shame tax" and all that. Just because they were allowed to live and to continue to practice their religion, but they weren't given full respect at all. And that's ignoring all the times when that specific setup didn't occur. See: the Ottoman Empire.

Megadeth wrote:

Are you saying that Arab culture wasn't superior during this period of time?

Yes. The advances in science and such that happened during the Islamic Renaissance are far more a product of geography than of culture.

Megadeth wrote:

I'm starting to suspect that you've got none.

You've got to love when ignorant people don't have any real objections, but just wants to hassle.

I suppose you also think that the Crusades was a war between horrible Christian conquerors and poor Muslim victims, too?

_________________

gomorro wrote:

Fortunately the seminar started and when it finished, I runed away like if Usain Bolt were about to rape me.

Lol, you're just trying to twist things to sound as if you are right about anything, even if it means contradicting yourself. Write something real instead of creating straw men and trying to fish for questions I can't answer. And if I can't, then everything you imagine must be true, right? None of what you write makes any sense.

_________________"Since that time, I have received highest level confirmations that such organizations not only exist but are rooted in satanic ritual murder and extend across America’s political landscape into nearly every community."

We're all just human. Instead of being proud of the particular genetic mutations that have evolved certain physical aspects more then others, be glad to be the beneficiaries of all human history's accumulated knowledge, such that it is. Its still racist when you say something positive about a certain group, assuming that there is some common superiority amongst them, when all this group had in common with themselves is/was geography. Racism and apologism are of equal uselessness in any debate regarding modern human culture. Humans are just human (all too human).

We're all just human. Instead of being proud of the particular genetic mutations that have evolved certain physical aspects more then others, be glad to be the beneficiaries of all human history's accumulated knowledge, such that it is. Its still racist when you say something positive about a certain group, assuming that there is some common superiority amongst them, when all this group had in common with themselves is/was geography. Racism and apologism are of equal uselessness in any debate regarding modern human culture. Humans are just human (all too human).

You would hope that, but sadly things aren't that easy. Fact of the matter is that Varg (and subsequently the people here saying they agree with him), think that fair skinned people are of a totally different species, and that there is no "humanity" in common among the different ethnic groups.People can dislike immigrants left and right, and while I might strongly disagree, and despise their views, spouting that people with an ethnicity from Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa (or anything "not white") have more in common with apes than so called "white people" (or "true Europeans" as mister Vikernes calls it) is just something I can't let go uncommented, or rationalise with "hurrhurr he's crazy funny". Especially when people in these forums say they agree with him and understand him. Hell, he's even saying that the "leftist jewish hippies" have managed to fool the world that the Mesopotamians and Egyptians weren't white.

But I have a question more geared to the original question:To the people supporting him financially by buying his stuff; why do you feel the need to separate "Varg the artist" from "Varg the person"? Aren't they the same? Your thoughts on that?

well he doesn't put that stuff in his lyrics apart from a few veiled hints here and there and as far as I know, he's not funding his plan for world domination through Burzum sales. Also, I've bought the last three Burzums from the local (independent) store so the label or whoever already got their money by the time I buy it.

Good question and my answer is yes I can in most instances I can make the distinction. There are limits though. In the example example of Varg, if he started prostituting his craft by writing racist lyrics or adorning a swastika on Burzum albums in the hopes of appealing or attracting to like minded individuals then yes I would be done listening to him at all. I look it at it like this: If the music world can admire Richard Wagner for his music or if the average filmmaker can appreciate Triumph of the Will as one of the greatest films in the world for its influential use of music and cinematography then I can appreciate Burzum just the same.

I can totally understand and have nothing against the fact that Burzum albums are widely recognized as some of the most essential and brilliant black metal, but I think people should at least consider not giving him any money. It won't lead to him making any more of those brilliant albums that's for sure, and in my eyes his hate-mongering easily revokes his right to get any of my money, that's certain as well. Wagner and Leni Riefenstahl are dead, they can't support racist organizations etc. with their record sales. This is what piracy (probably a Jewish invention anyways) is for, people!

Unless he runs his own pressing plant and distribution, I'm fairly certain his earnings from record sales and royalties is quite minimal. I doubt the average schmoe in Palookaville knows not his name or band. Most musical artists make the bulk of their revenue from touring anyways. The labels and distributors make most of the cash otherwise and there are many middle men involved who all want their cut.

Unless he runs his own pressing plant and distribution, I'm fairly certain his earnings from record sales and royalties is quite minimal. I doubt the average schmoe in Palookaville knows not his name or band. Most musical artists make the bulk of their revenue from touring anyways. The labels and distributors make most of the cash otherwise and there are many middle men involved who all want their cut.

Is the amount of money important? Because apparently he makes enough money that piracy hurts him (like he's said himself).

It seems to me like there are quite a lot of black metal (and other metal) musicians that are into something that I don't agree with at all. I mean, every second black metal song is about occultism or satanism, which I find extremely childish and silly. I don't care about spirituality, nationalism, paganism or anything like that, and bands that truly believe they make "evil music" are laughable. I generally don't care about lyrics, and I don't find much of it appealing. I'd rather read a book, a magazine or a newspaper while listening to music than follow the lyrics. I do follow the lyrics sometimes, but that's only because it makes me pay much more attention to the music.

I know I would never have supported a music project by some politicians which I hate from before, but when it comes to Varg I feel like his personal opinions are separate from the music, even though there might be a lot of it in the lyrics. It's probably because I listened to the music first. Nagash/Lex Icon from Troll, The Kovenant and Dimmu Borgir has openly written nationalistic anti-Islamic messages in Norwegian newspaper comment sections and signed it with his name. I've never liked The Kovenant or Troll before (even though I listened to Dimmu Borgir for a period several years ago), so I try to avoid them for any second chance because of the messages I have come across. I don't think I own any of Burzum's material, but that is mostly chance, and I do listen to his music on streaming music services which I pay for (and therefor pay him). But I have a feeling that there are lots of people who are very for or against something which I would never support, especially within the black metal scene, so I try not to give it too much thought as long as it's not very clear lyrics/imagery. I don't think most other musicians are that much better just because they aren't blogging about it. And my nickname is Megadeth so every post I make is a practical advertisement for insanity.